|
MountainBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Save some Weight
|
|
Aha, Found that Skewer weight/stiffness test article... (10 posts)
|  Aha, Found that Skewer weight/stiffness test article... | DeeEight
Mar 21, 2002 8:41 AM | | Back in the old days, people used a lot of Ti skewers, and had fork flex (course it was 1994 and Rockshox/Marzocchi/Manitou forks flexed more then than they do now). A british magazine called MTB-Pro ran an article in their April '94 issue, comparison test of 14 different brands of wheel skewers, measuring weight and fork deflection (and the load on the wheel was perpindicular to the fork's travel direction). Here are the results in brief. Ones with actual levers will say QR. Also Rod materials will be listed also, most were Ti or steel, but one used Ti & Alloy (british speak for aluminium).
Control Tech Ti 5mm, 46g, 2.1mm deflection
Tune Ti/Alloy QR, 48g, 3.0mm deflection
SRP Ti 5mm, 52g, 2.2mm deflection
USE Ti Spin Stix QR, 59g, 2.0mm deflection
Zero Ti QR, 64g, 2.8mm deflection
X-lite Ti QR, 66g, 2.5mm deflection
Miche Ti QR, 78g, 2.1mm deflection
Ringle Ti Twisters QR, 90g, 2.7mm deflection
Curve Ti QR, 92g, 2.2mm deflection
Salsa Steel FlipOffs QR, 100g, 2.3mm deflection
Ringle Steel Cam Twist QR, 104g, 2.7mm deflection
Odyssey steel Svelte QR, 104g, 2.1mm deflection
Lynx Steel QR, 110g, 2.0mm deflection
Shimano Steel QR (old style), 164g, 1.9mm deflection.
Note about the Odyssey Svelte QRs, they were made overseas and a couple years ago, DT-Swiss was selling them as their own product with the Hugi hubs. They've also been sold under the Axiom parts banner by Norco, among others. They look like a loop of steel rod for the lever. |
| Note the USE Spin Stix Ti findings... | AZ-X
Mar 21, 2002 9:05 AM | | Despite being one of the lightest listed, they have one of the lowest levels of deflection at 2.0mm. As I said in an earlier post below, I didn't notice much difference in the deflection or flex between the Ti version and the steel version. They cost the same amount ($60 @ Speedgoat.com, shipped), but the Ti version weighs over 20g less... |
| Yep, and as I noted in a thread below... | DeeEight
Mar 21, 2002 9:43 AM | | the skewer design itself plays as big a role in the deflection as the rod material. BOTH ringle skewers, one Ti, one Steel rods had the exact same deflection. |
| Does this mean... | mtc
Mar 21, 2002 9:35 AM | | you've got a line on those skewers you've been talking about, or was someone asking about this info? I remember a similar comparison from MTBaction with very similar results.
My.02 |
| No, it means someone else was whining about skewer flex... | DeeEight
Mar 21, 2002 9:41 AM | | in another thread a week or so ago. So I dug up the magazine that had the skewer test to prove that Ti skewers are no better/worse than steel skewers. |
| Damn! nm | mtc
Mar 21, 2002 10:15 AM | | |
| What they (good ones) all have in common? | DJS
Mar 21, 2002 10:39 AM | | it seems to what that what all the "good" ones have in common, such as shimano, the sachs loop handle ones, the spin-stix, etc is that they all have a solid face surface to hit the fork.
What I mean is.....take the Ringle for example....where the lever contacts the "pad" thing, which then contacts the fork, allows for some very small motion when fork tries to flex. Basically, on the lever end, the "lever pad" or whatever its called, is not fixed permanantly perpendicular to the skewer shaft.
The spin stix, the shimanos, etc all have a design where each skewer end is held perpendicular to the shaft without any cinching up, the cinching up just helps it along even more.
Am I making sense? |
| Except the USE and shimano skewers operate differently... | DeeEight
Mar 21, 2002 12:36 PM | | USE is a spin to tighten setup, not a cam action. Same as the Ringlé's. The Cam-twist model relies on both but its supposed to be cam first, then twist. Except people did the reverse a lot and then would break their skewers, which is why they released the twisters model, its pure twist action to tighten.
Shimano uses a cam action to close, as do a lot of other skewers (the Salsa's for example). Personally I don't like the Salsa FlipOffs. I find the cam too exagerated. They were trying to offer a simple lever that would be quick to open/close and allow the release of the wheel from a fork with lawyer tabs. But having a cam profile like that actually means a very low mechanical advantage to the lever. The larger the cam lobe, the more force you need to put into the lever to get good clamping force on the skewer rod. Shimano's have a very small cam lobe, and therefore high mechanical advantage. Doesn't take much effort to open/close, puts good clamping force on the skewer, but you need to do some twisting after you open the cam to clear the lawyer tabs. |
| Yes, operate diff. you missed the point | DJS
Mar 21, 2002 1:03 PM | | Im not talking about how they operate....Im talking about how the actual skewer contacts the fork surface. The "good" skewers have a contact surface that is fixed perpendicular to the axle shaft.
The ringle, for example, has the cam base which can wobble about the shaft axis. The spin stix and the shimano, for example, have two solid perpendicular surfaces contacting the fork. There is no chance of the skewer ends wobbling (on a micro level) on the skewer axis (which is what gives us the fork flex it seems) All of the skewers are capable of generating sufficient clamp force, but some are better at taking this clamp force and keeping its ends relatively perpendicular. |
| Ummmm, you apparently missed how a shimano skewer is built... | DeeEight
Mar 21, 2002 6:43 PM | | then since the end piece you refer to on the lever side is NOT fixed in place. It has some very definite play in it. And since it scored the highest in the test also with this play, you can throw your whole 'fixed permanently' theory out the window. Also they do come apart quite easily if you know how. |
| |
|
|
